Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:CFD)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Categories
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Deletion
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the WikiProject Deletion, a collaborative effort dedicated to improving Wikipedia in toto in the area of deletion. We advocate the responsible use of deletion policy, not the deletion of articles. If you would like to help, consider participating at WikiProject Deletion.

Edit notice[edit]

The instructions at WP:CFD#HOWTO said Follow the instructions in the comments (visible during edit), but there was no edit notice. I have created a group edit notice at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, which now appears for every edit to a CFD log page. What do editors think of this?

Of course, an alternative way to achieve consistency would be to change the instructions at HOWTO, removing the promise that instructions will be available during edit. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not keen on having to scroll past such a (large) edit notice for every edit (or even show preview) to any CFD discussion page. And, of course, it's much better to use Twinkle. DexDor (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Any other views? I have just suppressed it on the Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 07:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's way too bulky, and has been annoying me for week, so as a first step I have just collapsed it[1] as a first step.

I think it is fundamentally misconceived, and would prefer it to be deleted, or at least amended to a much shorter form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Collapsing it messed up the display, so I reverted the collapsing, and then blanked the page.

That editnotice was about how to create a CfD discussion. However, most edits at CFD are not about creating a discussion; they are to comment in an existing discussion. So for most edits to a CFD log page, a huge bulky edit notice is a disruptive intrusion.

I would be happy with a very short edit notice (1 or 2 lines only) which linked to the basic instructions, rather than reproducing them in full. Pinging Fayenatic london who created the editnotice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thinking about this a little further. Firstly, I should have thanked Fayenatic london for a good faith attempt to solve the problem of WP:CFD#HOWTO making a promise which was not fulfilled. I don't think that the first attempt resolved it, but there was a problem to be fixed.

So I suggest that:

  1. WP:CFD#HOWTO should be split out to a standalone page, for clarity
  2. WP:CFD#HOWTO should be reworded to a) put use of TWINKLE as the main way of doing nominations b) stop referring to instructions "visible during edit"
  3. Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion should be brief, in the same spirit as Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Re your comment "collapsing it messed up the display" - in this edit you put the {{collapse bottom}} immediately after a pair of closing braces. The template must be at the start of a line, otherwise it's not recognised as a table close but as the literal characters |}, hence the odd effects that you saw. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Redrose64. I hadn't spotted that cause of the glitch, and should have investigated.
As above, my preference now is for a much shorter editnotice, uncollpased. But obviously if you prefer to fix my broken attempt at collapsing it, pending whatever this discussion concludes, feel free to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I have reinstated the collapsed notice, and moved two lines outside the collapse box, one of which is a temporary line giving a link to this discussion, in order to attract more views. The collapse is certainly an improvement. I should have stated that I created the trial edit notice in response to the confusion expressed by Eric at CFD 2016 May 6. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, FL and all, thanks for taking a look at this. Eric talk 03:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Fayenatic london. That is much better than the huge box which dominated the edit screen.
I would still prefer a link to a standalone set of instructions, but this a good first step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I like the present format. My only comment is that it would be useful if a link could be provided to the category page, in case one wants to look at it again in the middle of writing a CFD comment. At present one needs to preview to get at a link. The AFD header provides such a link. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Peterkingiron:: Oh, fancy that. I was getting fed up of it myself, as it makes the page take even longer to load and stop jumping about, especially when using a tablet. So, I came here hoping for a resounding lack of support, in which case I was going to reduce it to a couple of lines, with no collapsed section. You make a nice suggestion about linking to the category, but AfD has the advantage that the article name can be retrieved from the AfD page name, e.g. WP:AfD/Article_name, whereas CfD pages are just logs named according to the date. In other words, good idea, but sorry, we can't do it. Tell me, do you actually refer to the collapsed section? I never do, because I always start with putting a template on the category page, and then copy from there to CFD. Unless anybody positively wants to keep the collapsed section, I propose to remove it and just link to WP:CFD#HOWTO. – Fayenatic London 20:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
      • @Fayenatic London: -- I do not refer to the collapsed section, because I know where to look for instructions on starting a CFD. However, many users will not be so experienced, so that the instructions are potentially useful. Possibly one line in a header (somewhere) linking to those instructions would be sufficient. The instruction about including a colon when referring to categories is important and needs to be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Closure script[edit]

Along with Rob's call above, are there any scripts to semi-automate the closure process? Like User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD2.js instead of User:King of Hearts/closecfd.js (which only works when editing a single section?) Such a tool would help with the backlog, or at least make it easier for others to pitch in czar 19:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I can look at coding such a script, like I did for FFD and TFD, but I'm not sure how much can or should be done automatically by the script. What I'm thinking at the moment is:
  • Keep/other: Prompt for result/comment, close section as such using {{subst:cfd top}} & {{subst:cfd bottom}}, add {{old cfd}} to cat talk page(s), remove {{Cfd}} or other Cfd template from the category (or categories).
  • Quick-Keep: As above, but just uses "Keep" as the result.
  • Delete/other: Prompt for result/comment, prompt for which working page to add to (/Working, or /Working/Large, or /Working/Manual), prompt for which section of selected page to use, prompt for either merge target or comment (as appropriate, based on page/section selected). If the /Manual page was chosen, replace {{Cfd}} or other Cfd template with {{listify}} or {{Cfd manual}} (as appropriate, based on section selected).
  • Other close: For multiple category discussions which require different actions for different categories. Prompts for result/comment, closes section as such, but takes no further action.
  • Relist: Relist on current day's subpage, close and collapse old discussion.
Pinging @Czar and BU Rob13: for comments - Evad37 [talk] 03:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
CfDs are complicated enough that tagging talk pages, etc. automatically with just one click is going to be hard. However, something that automates just the closing of the discussion itself (i.e. cfd top/cfd bottom) would be helpful. I'm unaware of any script that even does that (although it's possible one exists I haven't seen). ~ Rob13Talk 03:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Just closing the discussions would be simpler to code... maybe the extra options would be more suitable if its just a single-category nomination? or maybe just for closing as "keep"/"no consensus"? - Evad37 [talk] 05:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Yes check.svg Done as a basic script that just closes sections after prompting for a result/comment; and has an option to hide/show closed discussions. See User:Evad37/CFDcloser - Evad37 [talk] 03:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Evad37 As an aside, if you have time, could you look at making a simple modification to the TfD script to make it insert "soft delete. WP:REFUND applies." if you type "soft delete" into the prompt box? I'm tired of typing that bit out. It's the smallest least-important thing on the wiki, but it would save time/effort on my part. If you have time, thanks! ~ Rob13Talk 18:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Yes check.svg Done. User:Evad37/TFDcloser will now automatically expand "soft delete" into "soft delete. WP:REFUND applies." - Evad37 [talk] 00:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Bad undiscussed moves[edit]

Recently, User:Mervat Salman redirected/moved three categories from "Arabic" to "Arabian", though all cover the whole Arab world, saying "Arabic is only used for language". I can't just revert, as there is now a redirect. Also User:Babymissfortune has, in good faith, manually moved all the articles ahead of RussBot. Do we need full Cfds to reverse these undiscussed & clearly wrong changes? It's Category:Arabic music (moved there by 2011 CFD), Category:Arabic musical instruments and Category:Arabic architecture. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

They moved the pages. Why can you not move them back? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Can't move over a redirect. Needs an admin I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
You can, provided that (i) the redir has only one edit in its history, i.e. its creation by moving the page; (ii) the page that is redirected to is the same as the one that you're moving. See WP:MOVE#Undoing a move. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I can't. I've just tried again, and it won't let me. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Which page did you try it on, which method of moving did you use, what messages were shown? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I think all of them now. I just get the usual: "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason:The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move." I find with articles it sometimes lets me do this, but usually not, seemingly at random. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I have to say, though I'm not an expert, I also find "Arabic" odd as a descriptor of a culture rather than a language. If not "Arabian", then maybe "Arab"? --Trovatore (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
These are indeed the choices. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Redrose64:, @Trovatore:, @Johnbod:, Can you please check this? ... these categories were wrong, Arabic is only used for the language. Mervat Salman (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
That's one view. As I've pointed out to you, what is certainly true is that "Arabian" is only used for things relating to Arabia, that is to say the Arabian peninsula. Certainly not Egypt, Syria etc. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
One of the definitions in the OED of "Arabian" is "Of, from, or relating to Arabia or (more widely) the Arabic-speaking world." So it can be used to refer to things of the "Arab world". But I agree that today it is typically is used in the narrower sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
So, I repeat, I'm not an expert — but "Arab" sounds like the winner to me. Is there any reason these categories and articles should use "Arabic" in preference to "Arab"? --Trovatore (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
"Arabic" is in fact extremely common, in the best sort of publications, whatever the man from OUP says. Merriam-Webster specifically say "Arabic architecture, and I think they're right. No one says "Arab numerals"! Also see Arabic music on gbooks, and Arabic architecture (169K). Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The numerals are a special case, I think (let's talk quietly so we don't wake up the people who want to call them Hindu–Arabic numerals), and in any case are closely related to language. I would take "Arabic music" to mean music in Arabic, whether or not it was part of Arab culture.
In any case, my question is not so much whether the "Arabic" terms are used, but whether there is any reason to prefer them. There is clearly a reason to prefer "Arab", because it does not evoke the language so strongly. What is the countervailing reason to prefer "Arabic"? --Trovatore (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I continue to recommend an old considered opinion: Category creation (which would include renaming) should be a special permission not automatically available to any editor. The permission would require a request, and experience at CfD should be a prerequisite.
Categories are not content, they have unexpected limitations and complications, and there exist sophisticated tools for doing things properly. Most of the CfD work seems to involve cleaning up ill-considered category creations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
How true. We might at least impose a low limit per week or whatever. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree entirely about category creation (and renaming/moving). A licence should be required and it should be revocable. Oculi (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedy closed - Current policy has been explained to the nominator by all commenters. Also note that the pages in question more concern implementation following a discussion of community consensus, than merely closing a particular discussion. If some other admin thinks it's worth re-opening this RM proposal, please feel free to revert this speedy close. I left the discussion out of the "closed" section to allow for further discussion if wanted, but it's fairly clear that this particular group nom will not succeed due to current policy/process. - jc37 13:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

– The name Administrator instructions is incorrect as non-admins can close deletion discussions. Pppery (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Another mass rename proposal in maintenance area from this editor without much to say for it. This time he even didn't explain his reasons himself. Propose to speedily close this. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser: How am I not explaining my reasons? The name Administrator instructions is incorrect as non-admins can close deletion discussions. Pppery (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so that was the explanation. Did you notice that even though non-admins can close discussions, they can not delete category pages? I think that goes a long way to explain the present titles. As a matter of fact, I don't know how it is today, but in my day most non-admins saw this as a reason to refrain from closing discussions at Cfd, although it did happen once in a while. Still, and however that may be, the instructions are most pertinent to admins, who can actually delete categories. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pppery, per WP:NACD, (most) XfD venues do not welcome non-admins closing discussions as "delete". (though TfD does permits them. There was a recent RfC on RfD whose closure was disputed, and I never checked the result of that) If these instruction pages are moved, it should be made more clear on relevant pages that non-admins cannot close discussions as "delete" per WP:NACD. And FYI, a page like Wikipedia:Move review/Administrator instructions is more likely to gain consensus for a move than the ones you just nominated here. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 00:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Andy M. Wang: Thank you for the suggestion. I added move review to this request. Pppery (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      • It wasn't a suggestion to actually add that page, per se — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 01:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'd like to see this moved. The current instructions, which have been in place for two years and have worked in practice for many more, allow non-admin closures as "delete" so long as the non-admin is willing to handle the orphaning and tag as WP:G6 or they have an admin willing to list their closures at WP:CFD/W. I'm an admin and I'm willing to do that for any non-admin with some clue, so functionally, any competent non-admin is able to close discussions with any outcome at CfD. ~ Rob13Talk 16:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Db-c1: Four days or seven days?[edit]

Just a minor inconsistency. This page says that a category should be empty for "four days" in order for {{db-c1}} (called {{db-catempty}} here) to be used. WP:C1 says "seven days". Can these be made consistent? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It used to be four, and then it was standardized to seven. Thanks for pointing out we missed this. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: WP:CSD was altered four months ago, with this edit, the discussion is here, and {{db-c1}} was altered in this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)